Common sense thinking relies on personal experience and offers the most popular way of explaining a situation. Psychological thinking focuses on evidence to assess and describe people’s behavior. The sociological way of thinking considers the social structure and a human role within it to explain how the environment affects people. Thus, the essay will argue that sociological thinking can be the most helpful to improving society, but it fails to achieve it because decision-makers in power underutilize it.
Firstly, the differences between the three ways of thinking become evident when considering their approaches to homelessness. Common sense is not the best strategy to address and explain the issue. Since a personal experience is applied, various people can differently assess this condition. While an average American believes that homelessness is harmful, representatives of underprivileged groups can consider it a normal state of affairs. Psychological focus refers to how the issue affects individuals and their behavior (Tyson et al., 2011). That is why psychological researchers utilize numerous data collection methods to identify the consequences of homelessness on human mental health. Simultaneously, a sociological way of thinking draws attention to how the issue affects society. This lens focuses on people’s belonging to groups, without which individuals could not perform their daily activities (Bauman & May 2019). This information demonstrates that when a person is a member of a particular group, they face a number of challenges affecting their lives. As a result, one can suppose that thinking sociologically provides a systematic approach to analyzing the problem. Even though the information above reveals the positive features of a sociological way of thinking, no evidence demonstrates that policymakers utilize this approach.
Secondly, the focus on food poverty can also reveal essential differences. According to common sense, dilemmas are a natural part of society (Miller, 2018). This point of view also demonstrates that some people can be shocked at this fact, while others may not find anything surprising in this condition. Even though psychological thinking draws attention to individual behavior and experiences, it is impossible to ignore the role of social context (Tyson et al., 2011). For example, some researchers believed that representatives of particular racial groups were more subject to living in food poverty (Tyson et al., 2011). This approach is an example of a racist belief that is not valid today, but it still reveals that this way of thinking focuses on individuals. Simultaneously, a sociological lens can address the problem by focusing on the environment and how it affects people and their actions (Bauman & May 2019). This approach can demonstrate what systemic factors contribute to the problem and what versatile consequences the people involved can face. Sociologists can also assess how widespread the issue is and how urgently a response should be taken. This discussion has also revealed that sociological thinking can provide a comprehensive picture of the problematic condition.
Thirdly, the discussion of intersectionality can enrich the understanding of the differences between the three ways of thinking. One can suppose that common sense represents a generalized representation of intersectionality. Since this thinking approach relies on personal experiences, people can overestimate the role of some characteristic features and underestimate others in assessing exposure to discrimination. Psychological thinking represents a more scientific approach to the issue. For example, psychology draws attention to gender, race, personal characteristics, and mental health (Tyson et al., 2011). This information demonstrates that the given framework analyzes whether and how these features affect individual behavior, experiences, and decisions (Tyson et al., 2011). As for the sociological way of thinking, this lens also follows a systematic approach. However, it is possible to mention that this thinking draws attention to more aspects. For example, the focus is on individual peculiarities and broader concepts, including culture, time, territory, lifestyle, and others (Bauman & May 2019). This information demonstrates that people from any social, territorial, or cultural group can face discrimination. Consequently, there is no doubt that a sociological way of thinking provides a more comprehensive picture of how intersectionality is represented among people, contributing to a better understanding of the issue in society.
In conclusion, this essay has argued that sociological thinking implies many benefits when compared to common sense and psychological thinking. According to evidence from three reputable textbooks and the lectures, the paper has shown that the given framework can provide a better understanding of how homelessness, food poverty, and intersectionality affect society. However, decision-makers fail to rely on this thinking approach, which makes it impossible for the community to address these problems and experience the highlighted benefits.
References
Bauman, Z., & May, T. (2019). Thinking sociologically (3rd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
Miller, P. F. (2018). Dilemmas and decisions: A critical addition to the curriculum. Brill.
Tyson, P. J., Jones, D., & Elock, J. (2011). Psychology in social context: Issues and debates. Wiley-Blackwell.